Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-03-16
About CoupOn-Kiiiers.


To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
Ina letter written by General Malone
TO United States Senator Warner Miller,
dated April "a, 1885, he gave the points
his supporters were to make upon tho
Democratic patty. Among thesepoints
was his, much used and relied on by
his adherents in reference to the injury
done the Riddleberger bill by their
adoption of the act of March IL, 1881,
which was in the line of his Coupon
Killer No. 2.
Upon that point his argument Is as
follows:
"But the oct Of Assembly commonly called
by its opponents 'Coupon-Killer No. q was bo-
nayed 10 be within the decision OF tho court in
an analogous case. Tho effort was 70 conform
all our legislation TO the law a. established by
Tho highest court In the country. The language
Of this act Is substantially the same as an act
Of the State OF Tennessee 70 prevent tho inter
ceptiOn OF her revenues by the notes OF inc
Pank Of Tennessee. Those were by law re-
ceiyatle for taxes "a ere the coupons here. The
Supreme Court Of the United States unani-
mously sustained the validity OF that a;t IN tho
Cnse Of Tennessee ~. Snead, decided AT tho DC
tober term, 1877. &c U. :. Reports, page bs
Of Autoni o. Greerhow, in which the validity
OF the act II Virginia OF January II. 1870, Is
sustained dhe act called by our enemies Con-
pom Killer No. ~. the court, through tne ChleI
Justice, refers 10 the decision In tho tennessee
case. end faye:
1--WE might have satisfied ourselves by a
reference 10 the case OF Tennessee rs Snead ubI
sulTa where the same general question was De
fore US; but as we were asked 10 RECONSIDER
that case we have done so, with the same ro-
nh
departing from the long line OF cases In which
the principle involved has been recognized and
applied oo,s,or IN conclusion saws Of our vir-
ginia Ac, Of January IA, 1882 (Coupon-hiher
No. ~: "
"'lnasmuch as we are satisfied that reme-
dy Is given by the act OF 1882, substantially
eduiyalen mt 10 that in force when the coupons
were issued, we have not deemed IL necessary
10 consider what would DO the eject OF a
statute taking away all remedies This was a
posiiiye reafrmance Of the right OF state 10
change or prescribe tho adequate process by
whi, claims against her mny be enforced.
at is In this act only Of ours ITO which Oh
lection now appears by the late decision as be
ing at variance with the decisions In Tennessee
rs Suead), in connection with the subsequent
legislation Of the Democratic party, that tho
Supreme Court in its recent decision touches
cur Readiuster-Republican debt settlement"
1t appears from this that he had seen
and considered the decision of the Su-
prime Court of the United States III
Poindexter Us. Greenhow, promulgated
April 20, 1885.
That being the case, one is curiousto
know why he omitted from his state
ments the following paragraphs from
that decision, which distinctly contra
diets his above-quoted criticism:
Poindexter "a. Greenhow, United States Re
ports l1s, p. 2ss and S06:
"The ratio deeiGendi in this class OF cases Is
very plain. A defendant sued a. q wrong
doer, who socks TO substitute tho state IN his
place, or to justify by the authority OF INC otate
or 20 defend on the ground TINT the state has
adopted his act and cxonerated him, CANNOT
rest on the hare assertion OF his defence. lie
is bound to establish 1t. The State is O
political corporate body, can act only
through agents, and can command Only
by laws IL Is necessary. therefore, for such
a defendant, In order 10 complete his defence,
10 produce law of the State which constitutes
his commission as its agent. and warrant Tor
his act ] his the defendant In the present
case undertook 10 do. lie relied on The act ~
Jottgyu ~. 1882. reduk-ing him 10 collect taxes
in gold, silver, United States treasury notes,
national bank currency, and nothing else, nnd
thus forbidding his receipt OF coupons IN lieu
Of money. That. 1t IA true, IL legislative ac!
law Of the State OF Virginia. The state
has passed no such lar, for Il cdanOt
and what II cannot do, II certainly. In
contemplation Of law, has not done. The Con-
stitution Ct the United states and It's own con-
tract both i.repealable by any act on It's part
are the law Of Virginia, and that law male II
the duty Of the defendant TO receive the cou-
pons rendered In payment OF taxes, and De
clAfed erery step TO enforce tho TAX thereaftel
taken TO be without warrant OF law and th0re-
fore a wrong lie stands, then, stripped OF his
official character, aud confessing personal
violation If the plaintiff = rights, for which he
must personally answer, he is without defence.
Page 2ss
"To coerce creditors holding bonds issued
under the act OF March 20, 1871, to exchange
Them for these new bonds at these reduced
rates, and with them 10 give up their security
for the payment of interest arising out OF the
receivability Of coupons IN payment OF taxes
Is the evident purpose Of the acts OF January
"a. 1882 end Of March Is, 1894. and all together
form a single scheme. the undisguised object oil
which is TO enable the state 70 rid Itself OF q
considerable portion OF It's pubic dept. anu te
place the remainder on terms 10 suit It's Owl
nyenience. without regard TO the obligation
IL owes TO Its creditors.
.The uhoIe legislation, in all its parts, az "a
creditors affected by II and not consenting to IL
must be pronounced null and void.' Page 3O6
This opinion was given in a suiI
brought April 26, 1888. How could a
court decide case brought then upon
an act which was not passed until March
10, 1884?
But if they did, then both the Ma
hone Coupon-Killer No. 2 and the
amendatory act of March 13, 1884
were declared unconstitutional. How
can it be contended, then, that Coupon
Killer No. 2 by itself would have stood
the test?